On July 22, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) in Uniloc 2017, LLC v. HULU, LLC. In particular, the CAFC found that the case was not moot despite a prior CAFC judgment of invalidity and that the Board did not err in rejecting Uniloc’s Request for Rehearing on the basis of Section 101 invalidity of the proposed substitute claims. Judge O’Malley issued a strong dissent, accusing the majority of “breath[ing] life into a dead patent and us[ing] the zombie it has created as a means to dramatically expand the scope of inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings.”
Litigation
- How French and California Contract Law Would Interpret SEP Patent Owner Obligations Under the ETSI Licensing Declaration
- NYIPLA Tells Supremes IP Lawyers Need Attorney-Client Privilege for Dual-Purpose Communications
- A Guide to Disclosures in Delaware Patent Litigation in the Face of Pending Federal Circuit Review
- CAFC Expressly States Patentee Disclaimers During IPR are Not Binding on the PTAB’s Patentability Analysis
- Disruptive Startups Cannot Survive in a Post-AIA Patent Landscape
Recent Posts
- USPTO, Copyright Office Joint Study on NFTs Could Help Dispel Confusion About IP Ownership in Media Content Underlying Digital Assets
- How French and California Contract Law Would Interpret SEP Patent Owner Obligations Under the ETSI Licensing Declaration
- WIPO Report: China Sees Massive Surge in IP Filings Across the Board
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, November 25: Seventh Circuit Nixes Publicity Claim Against Subscriber List Sale, Copyright Office and USPTO Announce NFT Study, and Alia Moses Takes Over as Chief Judge of Western Texas
- What IP Stakeholders are Giving Thanks for in 2022